Subject: [Curdle] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-modp-dh-sha2-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 13:06:49 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-modp-dh-sha2-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-modp-dh-sha2/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1, paragraph 2:

   New MODP groups are being
   introduced starting with the MODP 3072-bit group 15 all use SHA512 as
   the hash algorithm.

I can't parse this. Should there be a sentence break between "15" and "all"?

I was surprised to find section 4 here; in part because it isn't related to the
addition of new algorithms, but mostly because it's not mentioned in the
abstract or the introduction. Please add mention of this erratum correction to
both sections.

I'm pretty sure RFC6234 needs to be normative.

---

From: "Mark D. Baushke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:51:44 -0700

> I can't parse this. Should there be a sentence break between "15" and "all"?

Yes. There should be a period after 15 and 'all' should be 'All'

> I was surprised to find section 4 here; in part because it isn't
> related to the addition of new algorithms, but mostly because it's not
> mentioned in the abstract or the introduction. Please add mention of
> this erratum correction to both sections.

Thank you.

I will change 'This document updates RFC 4253.' to

    'This document updates RFC 4253 including an errata for checking the
    Peer's DH Public Key.'

in the abstract.

I then added

       Section 3 of the [RFC4253] contains a small errata for checking
       the Peer's DH Public key. Section 4 of this document provides the
       correction.

as a new paragraph under the Overview and Rationale.

> I'm pretty sure RFC6234 needs to be normative.

Okay, that is an easy change to make.

	-- Mark

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 12:19:03 -0500

Thanks! These all look good to me.

/a